Finding the right lens - why so difficult???

I am looking for the 'right' lens to start out with on a D90. I posted some time back and received many comments and still read this forum everyday. Unfortunately, I still have NOT figured out which lens to buy. To recap I am looking for my first lens to do family/reunion pictures, wedding pictures as well as a walk around for when/if I ever go on vacation. I can't afford all those nice thousand dollar + lenses which helps to limit my choices. I realize wide angle and prime lenses will come in time. My dilemma is the extremes and apparent contradictions provided by fellow posters. For example:

18~200 = great lens use it as my primary walk around - only one I use
this lens has pincushion, barrel distortion and is soft everywhere but in
the middle - o.k. but if you want better quality pics go elsewhere..

18~105 = great kit lens. sharp focuses quickly really good
cheaply built, not all that fast, not bad but others much, much better

16~85 = great lens, quality built, fast, sharp really nice oughta have
overpriced for what you think you are getting - performance better
than kit but that's about all - better off with other choices for far
less cost.

18~280 = talk about a great walk around - picks up everything I need, nice
focus, sharp.
good as long as you're in the daylight or have plenty of light cause
once you lose it the focus takes f o r e v e r. turned mine back in.

As you see, no matter what I would choose there appears to be something "wrong" with it. It's enough to make you just say "to hell with it." How nice it would be if there was some consensus on lenses in each 'category' that we could look at as 'safe bet', 'worth every penny', 'you won't be let down' - lenses. Don't get me wrong I value everyone's opinion as you all are far more knowledgeable than I and they are based on your actual experiences and that is what makes it very, very difficult to purchase that first lens. It wouldn't be so bad if lenses weren't so expensive however, given the cost and all the other expenses in our lives one hopes to make the first choice the right choice. Thanks for the read and I still could use some input as to which lens(s) or combination I should get. Thanks again....

Keep in mind that everything is relative, so I'd just be careful of any statements taken out of context. That is, to someone who has a 24-70, they may find the 16-85 unacceptable, while to the person who started with the 18-200 may find it wonderful.

My thoughts:

18-200: great lens for when you want one lens to "do it all". I think many agree you can take great photos with it, but of course there are better alternatives if you don't mind changing lenses, having a shorter zoom, using primes,etc. (I have this lens)

18-105: I find no contradictions in the statements: "great lens, sharp, focuses quickly, really good" and throw in the great value statement also, which it is. So, who cares if it's "cheaply built and not that fast" (ie. not great in low light), as it is so inexpensive. It'd be really rare to find a "great lens, sharp, focuses quickly, really good" that is also "built like a tank, really fast and under $500"...

16-85: I've heard great things on this lens. It's not fast at all, and it is pricey, but it's about IQ and I've heard nothing but good things from those who have it. (I don't have this one - I have the 18-70).

Remember also that there is sample variation amongst all lenses. I quickly returned my Sigma 10-20 3.5 as it was unacceptably soft, but I likely just got a bad copy. Take a look at reviews for the Tokina 11-16 regarded by many as one of the best wide angles: some said it was horrible and soft, while others said it was amazing. Sample variance accounts for a lot sometimes.

In other words, visit a store and try some out in your hand, and on some photographs. Long live the local photography store!!

There has never been and never will be a one lens does it all perfectly. That is why they make backpacks and large camera bags.
--
WSSA #44
http://www.pbase.com/image/30388325

Every, yes every, lens has "negatives". You have to be careful reading input from people whom you don't know because you don't know their perspective. Me I'm a lens snob and frankly I don't make any excuses about it. I like the really good glass and make decisions based on looooong term ownership. So when I look at a lens, well it better be f2.8 (or better).

Having said that........I'd buy the 18-105mm in a heartbeat in your position. It's a really good (not great) lens and I seriously doubt that 90 percent of dSLR owners could tell the difference between it and the pro stuff for "normal" use. Of course you'll not find a pro 18-105 lens because there are too many tradeoffs in the design, whether it be issues with IQ or simply that no one could afford it.

I'd consider the 18-105 to be the Toyota Camry lens for Nikon consumer grade dSLRs. It's not a Lexus, but do you really need one and is the Lexus worth double the money? Actually that's not a good analogy because both get you from point A to B. The Lexus is a little more comfortable, and possibly even safer, but you still get there the same. The pro glass will do things that the consumer grade stuff won't, but it's usually at the extremes where it becomes evident and most never go there.

Buy the 18-105 and enjoy it.

Keith

For auto focus function to be good the lens must be at least f/5.6 which excludes the 18-280!

18-105VR and 18-200VR2 are approx equal in IQ, the first cheaper the second more convenient.

16-85VR2 clearly the best IQ and approx same price as 18-200.

Without experience it is difficult to know what lens would be the most satisfying for yourself. You just have to make the dive and start swimming. Personally I would have made a toss between the 18-200 and the 16-85, but frankly I believe the 18-105 give most value, particularly because you need something to develop your first personal preferences with. Then if another lens turns out to be the "right one", you have not paid too much on the first try.

But you can't go wrong with any of those three.

When you find absolute consensus on anything in life, let me know. Seriously, you just have to accept that no matter what lens you pick, there are going to be people who have negatives about it. Most people would agree that the 70-200VR was one of Nikon's greatest efforts, yet we now (or soon will) have the 70-200VR II. You just have to analyze what's important for you, whose opinions you can actually rely upon and what compromises you are willing to make.
--



http://community.webshots.com/user/REBlue01
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reblue/sets/

Its actually not very difficult for the kind of lens you are looking at because the first three you mention all perform quite well.

The best value for money is the 18-105mm, the sharpest with least distortion is the 16-85, the most flexible is the 18-200mm. There are also some disadvantages: with the 18-105mm its the cheap build and a little distortion; with the 16-85mm its price and the loss of wider apertures, with the 18-200mm its distortion and lack of sharpness in some samples. If you don't know which to buy, then I would pick up a used 18-105mm, since if offers the best value for money, and if you don't like it, you can always sell it for not a lot less than you purchased it.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !

And the reason is we are not all the same. Most of us though, want to take good pics of family (family is important after all), but it would not be bad to get some landscapes that work or street photos that convey something poetic or a great shot of wildlife. But until you post that you are off to take trip to Utah, Europe, or Africa, specialized lenses are not as critical yet. Lenses that is great for the family that can do a little more than that, at less than $300? Sure!

Our experience shooting is not the same. How many of us really get paid to shoot pictures, anyway? Heck, even if we aspire to the pro level gear, when does the hobby become just an case greatest latest gizmo? Myself, very unlikely to be paid to shoot yet I am getting some great pics of a newborn that would not happen with a P&S. So I guess the first realistic step is… up to how far do I really go with this?

If one is not the Bryan Peterson or Thom Hogan or the Ansel Adams of the word, in all candor, pull over here and grab a DX type lens, don’t drop test them (or get protection with insurance) and have a blast shooting the barbeques and birthday cake. The pro level gear is great, but I have been myself suckered into lens lust and now realize that I have lenses I do not need. For family affairs, I would grab the 18-105 and either d90 or d5000/d40/d3000 and an SB600 flash.

Go to d90: I recommended to a few friends that to get this item: some did, some went d5000. When I realized that 4/5 friends I influenced still have not figured out to start the photo counter to continuous, enabled grid lines etc. I realized that the d90 is good if one really wants to learn the subtleties of the ISO-aperture-shutter speed triangle: if that thought makes the eye glaze over, then the d40/d5000/d3000 units makes sense as a slight upgrade to the P& S. Just the interface of the zoom lens will better serve the market.

Pro glass vs. cheap consumer zooms: Having a nerdy interest in the technical side of photography, I assumed that this meant pro glass will get me better pics. It didn’t, but when I finally started learning to use the gear I had, my response time with my current gear on a photo opportunistic moment improved, and hence improved my keeper rate. Let me give some examples:

Customizing the d90 to set the FUNC button – ISO control, picture controls, flash commander mode are all here. I am better now at setting the best technical info for the d90 to take the shot I want. Mind you, I still had to point the lens in the right direction, perspective and composition to please the aesthetic of the shot. But I can get there faster now.

I struggled with getting faster lens the cheap way i.e. the 50 and 35 mm 1.8 lens. Fast glass? Yeah. Got some great pics, sure, but only at forced 2.8 aperture, high ISO and the troubling logistics of foot zoom. Hey, I don’t mind sneaker zoom, but a baby smile last maybe 1/60 of a second, the 18-55 kit was serving me better when I finally broke down and admitted …

For family indoor pics, we all need a flash. We can hem and haw and complain that the flash lit pics are lousy looking, but now I know it was because of user error. I borrowed an SB600 and was thrilled by the gains in compositional flexibility, low ISO levels and using smaller than f8 (after 8pm!) I had to eat crow about old posts and hating flash lit shots. Learn how to use the flash, silly, was my lesson.

Yes, the sb600 does add bulk, but in our parties, I can place the camera down once in a while. Diffusers and adjusting the output are a bit esoteric but really get easier with practice. To think all I know so far is bounce flash. There are wireless flashes and soft boxes still to discover … but I digress.

As a caveat though, on a practical day to day shooting basis, VR really does work wonders. I don’t have the steadiest hands, and even the sb600 still could not make up for my poor shot discipline to stability (if it’s not a landscape night shot, I deem tripods too much of a hassle. Plus, tripping the significant other can impede the lens budget for fiscal year 2010. =)

This is why I am going with the 18-105 with VR. I examined my old files, with the 18-55, 70-300 and 50 & 35 prime lenses, and found very few shot at 18mm. The majority was between 20 to 105.

The price point is great, my credit card will protect me from the first three months of klutziness and am banking on relative Nikon QA to forgive my first couple of drops. Sure it’s slow, but I now know that the SB600 will take care of that as long as I was willing to learn how to flash on the darn thing.

The best part for me? The newborn will not go back to being a tiny little thing again. I get to shoot now, not 4 years from now, where the 17-55 2.8 is going to be great but 2009 memories are gone and irrevocable.
PS

Do not think for a second I don’t want pro level gear. I am still coveting the 70-200 2.8 waaay down the road. Portraits of my child with the game winning goal or flopping down less than gracefully in poor arena light? No cheap zoom or flash combo will get that. But then, I do have 4 years for that, eh?

Sonny

PSS

typing this after reading the OP, I see the 18-105 vote I have has a few backers. =)

--
Dee Nine Oh and Dee Four Oh
Eighteen to fifty five non Vee Arr
Seventy to Three Hundred Vee Arr
Thirty five and fifty mm one point eight primes
Ess Bee Six hundred flash

Here's my opinion speedracer. I already had the 16-85 and 18-200 before I bought the D90 with its kit lens 18-105 so I have used all three of the Nikon lenses. I've never even seen the 18-280.

You would need a very critical "golden eye" to see any difference in image quality between the three Nikon lenses in print sizes up to A4 (maybe even larger).

The build quality (how well it is put together) is very good for each. For robustness, I would give the nod to the 16-85 and 18-200 but they are also heavier. I treat my gear carefully so the robustness question is of no consequence to me .

I prefer the focal length range of the 18-105 over the 16-85 - for others, it is the other way round. Naturally, neither can match the 18-200 for reach so that lens is the most versatile but adds the most bulk and weight to the camera.

Of the three, I prefer the handling of the 18-105. I like its broader zoom collar and its zoom action is very smooth with just the right amount of stiffnes for me . The zoom action of my 16-85 is also smooth but stiffer - my 18-200 is not as smooth and the stiffness increases at the two extremes.

The 16-85 and 18-200 are much more expensive than the 18-105, especially if the 18-105 is part of a kit. I see the 18-105 as the best "bang for the buck" and its the one I use most.

You said you were "looking for my first lens to do family/reunion pictures, wedding pictures as well as a walk around for when/if I ever go on vacation". I'd say the 18-105 would meet those requirements. IF you later found that you need more reach sometimes, you could add the 55-200 VR and still have paid less than the cost of either of the other two lenses.
--
Ken AD

A zoom is all about tradeoffs on cost, weight, performance.

Get a prime and zoom with your feet

If you are going to zoom route I'd say 18-105 best middle of the road compromise with good value.

If you want range get the Tamron 18-270 great range with all the compromise that come with it, but since its no Nikon you get a little value there. Also very nice OS IMHO

If there were one perfect lens (like the 10-400 f/0.95 pancake zoom, 12 oz), somebody would complain it was too heavy, some too slow, some that it didn't have VR.

The 16-55 is a terrific little lens, very cheap. You can probably even find a used one for even less. Buy one and take some pictures. When you get frustrated with some kind of shot you can't take, come back for more advice.

I'm sorry there are just too many choices for you. Eventually, you just have to buy them all.

Happy shooting.
--
Pat

speedracer2008 said:

I am looking for the 'right' lens to start out with on a D90. I posted some time back and received many comments and still read this forum everyday. Unfortunately, I still have NOT figured out which lens to buy. To recap I am looking for my first lens to do family/reunion pictures, wedding pictures as well as a walk around for when/if I ever go on vacation. I can't afford all those nice thousand dollar + lenses which helps to limit my choices. I realize wide angle and prime lenses will come in time. My dilemma is the extremes and apparent contradictions provided by fellow posters. For example:

Click to expand...

speedracer2008 said:

18~200 = great lens use it as my primary walk around - only one I use
this lens has pincushion, barrel distortion and is soft everywhere but in
the middle - o.k. but if you want better quality pics go elsewhere..

Click to expand...

speedracer2008 said:

18~105 = great kit lens. sharp focuses quickly really good
cheaply built, not all that fast, not bad but others much, much better

Click to expand...

speedracer2008 said:

16~85 = great lens, quality built, fast, sharp really nice oughta have
overpriced for what you think you are getting - performance better
than kit but that's about all - better off with other choices for far
less cost.

Click to expand...

speedracer2008 said:

18~280 = talk about a great walk around - picks up everything I need, nice
focus, sharp.
good as long as you're in the daylight or have plenty of light cause
once you lose it the focus takes f o r e v e r. turned mine back in.

Click to expand...

speedracer2008 said:

As you see, no matter what I would choose there appears to be something "wrong" with it. It's enough to make you just say "to hell with it." How nice it would be if there was some consensus on lenses in each 'category' that we could look at as 'safe bet', 'worth every penny', 'you won't be let down' - lenses. Don't get me wrong I value everyone's opinion as you all are far more knowledgeable than I and they are based on your actual experiences and that is what makes it very, very difficult to purchase that first lens. It wouldn't be so bad if lenses weren't so expensive however, given the cost and all the other expenses in our lives one hopes to make the first choice the right choice. Thanks for the read and I still could use some input as to which lens(s) or combination I should get. Thanks again....

Click to expand...

Hi!

Well, there's also something "wrong" with all my lenses. To name a few:

200VR- Doesn't focus close enough
200-400VR- Not as sharp at distance @f/4 as I'd like
Zeiss 100/2 no Vr. No auto focus. Doesn't go to 1:2
28 1.4 Vignettes some at f/1.4
85 1.4 green and purple fringing in OOF, high contrast areas
14-24 doesn't take filters and can exhibit flare.

Seriously, a few points:

-There are plenty of great pictures that have been taken with all of the lenses you've mentioned.

-All lenses have relative weaknesses. You'll find some people complaining about just about every lens

-Hard to buy lobster at hamburger prices.

If you are a nut about IQ, but on a limited budget, in general, stick with primes.
180 f/2.8
85 1.8
50 1.8
35 1.8

If you want great zooms, in general, be prepared to spend a lot more money.

Start shooting with whatever.

Chances are, that for any relatively new photographer, the lens will not be the limiting factor for the quality of work produced.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

You've been on the forum too much. You're more concerned about buying the right lens than actually taking pictures.

It's not hard...

Buy a lens, take some pictures, show them to us, get feedback. We can't give you feedback on your photos until you buy the lens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :> )

It's easy...

Buy the Nikon 18-105 - the best IQ and best range for the money.

Do it now.

Go to B&H and get one tonight. They have a great return policy in case you want to return it.

Do it now, it's EASY.

Do it now, it is NOT difficult.

Do it now. You'll be GLAD you did.

And stop asking so many questions!!!!!!!!!! :> )

Alan
Raleigh, NC

PS - Buy one now.

--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/

There is no perfect lense. . .
Thats why most of us have a collection. . .

Set a price point and get one. . . as much as you want it to be the perfect one. . . it wont be the last one you buy. . . there is always another. . .

Something like the 18-200 will give you alot of options for a modest price and best of all it will get your D90 out of the box and into your hands - and I'll bet you wont notice most of it's short commings. . . .

Trust us, the camera will be much more fun with a lense on the front end. . .

--
http://www.gdgoggins.smugmug.com/

It depends on what is important to you. Is build quality and weather resistant important? How about weight? And the list goes on.

If you're just need a decent lens, any of those will be adequate, it just depends on your budget. Now, when you feel that the lens is limiting you, by then, you'll know what you need

But....you didn't mention a flash, it's almost a requirement for indoor/interior shot for such a "slow" lens. Confusing ya? Just take a plunge, the water will get warmer as you swim in it more

speedracer2008 said:

I am looking for the 'right' lens to start out with on a D90. I posted some time back and received many comments and still read this forum everyday. Unfortunately, I still have NOT figured out which lens to buy. To recap I am looking for my first lens to do family/reunion pictures, wedding pictures as well as a walk around for when/if I ever go on vacation. I can't afford all those nice thousand dollar + lenses which helps to limit my choices. I realize wide angle and prime lenses will come in time. My dilemma is the extremes and apparent contradictions provided by fellow posters. For example:

18~200 = great lens use it as my primary walk around - only one I use
this lens has pincushion, barrel distortion and is soft everywhere but in
the middle - o.k. but if you want better quality pics go elsewhere..

18~105 = great kit lens. sharp focuses quickly really good
cheaply built, not all that fast, not bad but others much, much better

16~85 = great lens, quality built, fast, sharp really nice oughta have
overpriced for what you think you are getting - performance better
than kit but that's about all - better off with other choices for far
less cost.

18~280 = talk about a great walk around - picks up everything I need, nice
focus, sharp.
good as long as you're in the daylight or have plenty of light cause
once you lose it the focus takes f o r e v e r. turned mine back in.

As you see, no matter what I would choose there appears to be something "wrong" with it. It's enough to make you just say "to hell with it." How nice it would be if there was some consensus on lenses in each 'category' that we could look at as 'safe bet', 'worth every penny', 'you won't be let down' - lenses. Don't get me wrong I value everyone's opinion as you all are far more knowledgeable than I and they are based on your actual experiences and that is what makes it very, very difficult to purchase that first lens. It wouldn't be so bad if lenses weren't so expensive however, given the cost and all the other expenses in our lives one hopes to make the first choice the right choice. Thanks for the read and I still could use some input as to which lens(s) or combination I should get. Thanks again....

Click to expand...

Practical, inexpensive normal prime: 35/1.8
Best expensive normal Zoom: 17-55/2.8

ARClark said:

You've been on the forum too much. You're more concerned about buying the right lens than actually taking pictures.

It's not hard...

Buy a lens, take some pictures, show them to us, get feedback. We can't give you feedback on your photos until you buy the lens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :> )

It's easy...

Buy the Nikon 18-105 - the best IQ and best range for the money.

Do it now.

Go to B&H and get one tonight. They have a great return policy in case you want to return it.

Do it now, it's EASY.

Do it now, it is NOT difficult.

Do it now. You'll be GLAD you did.

And stop asking so many questions!!!!!!!!!! :> )

Alan
Raleigh, NC

PS - Buy one now.

Click to expand...

Alan,

Great answer! You must learn to be more direct though. This passive attitude you have, well.........

Keith

Go here.....

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=5&camera=1039&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

It ready has the D90 and 18-200mm lens selected, review the photos, select the other Nikon lenses of interest in the lens pull down menu and review those photos. If a particualr lens photos catches your eye for IQ, colors, contrast, saturation, and most of all your style of shooting you may want to look at that lens closer to make a decision.

I prefer the 18 - 55mm VR + 55 - 200mm VR as a very nice cost effective combo .
If I could only choose one it would be the 18 - 105mm VR .

Regards,
Chris

Start with the new 35mm prime or the 50mm prime, both of these lenses are great, and you get a lot of flexabilty with the aperture.